Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Riiiiggghhhht, because artists drawing of the naughty bits is the only missing piece in the "academic interest" for Bigfoot. Got it.

Riiiigggghhhhht, because you don't understand that I am commenting on the laughable claims of scientific research of those who post such claims.

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Riiiiggghhhht, because artists drawing of the naughty bits is the only missing piece in the "academic interest" for Bigfoot. Got it.

The missing piece is bigfoot, or a piece of bigfoot. Not a single bit has ever been produced in the natural history of North America, in the 15 to 25,000 (depending) years of human history of North America. Not. A. Piece.

You would need a bigfoot to stimulate academic interest and there are none to be found.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Riiiigggghhhhht, because you don't understand that I am commenting on the laughable claims of scientific research of those who post such claims.

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Your manufactured disdain and defensiveness fool no one.

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

As the only active "footer" on this forum, am I selective in my responses? Absolutely, 100% yes. Apologies if that is frustrating to you but that's how it is.

Another fourm member posted this in response to the blathering of one of many woo peddlers .....I think it was a brilliant response and bears repeating. Sorry for being unable to credit the author....please "stand" and be recognized if it's yours, if you feel so inclined.

"Right there are, in fact, a lot of people here who post expecting their anecdotes to be elevated to reality; their superstitions to be granted the status of truth; their opinions to be exalted; and the rough places of their assertions to be made plain. Those people continue to run afoul of the expectation that claims be supported.

Fortunately, that's one of the reasons this forum exists--to help those people, and others like them, learn to present evidence for their assertions."

One would think that a person brave enough to car camp mount an expedition to a third growth back 40 Minnesota bigfoot hotspot would have the balls to address a few simpleton's skeptical observations concerning the subject.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

It isn't a substantive question, you are asking me what a Bigfoot is thinking and of course there's no way to answer that.

Balderdash. I -- and others -- are asking you to reconcile the claim that Bigfoot is so elusive and impossible to document (setting aside all the claimed foot prints and hair samples) with the numerous claims that he is seen and communicated with so often and at such close range.

Balderdash. I -- and others -- are asking you to reconcile the claim that Bigfoot is so elusive and impossible to document (setting aside all the claimed foot prints and hair samples) with the numerous claims that he is seen and communicated with so often and at such close range.

But you know this.

You would think that someone who's heard /read "numerous" bigfoot reports and claims several bigfoot encounters could offer a cogent explanation as to why he (and the alleged thousands others) cannot provide a scintilla of objective evidence, much less an actual bigfoot, or bigfoot part.

They are "elusive" does not cut it in 2017. It's playground pretend.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

This year we have 4 areas we are focusing on in Northern Minnesota/Wisconsin, each having had encounters within the last year or two. For those who went last year, we will likely not be returning to that spot this year, wanting to give it a rest for a year or two. he other is a brand new location that we are very excited about. We’ll have more information about the locations we are looking at as the dates get closer, but you should be prepared to travel to either North Central Minnesota or Northwestern Wisconsin

Yes, these serious, intrepid researchers are not going back to a footie hotspot in order to "give it a rest." Just like any researcher attempting to establish a novel species would. More pretend.

The family property, and my retirement acreage is in NW Wisconsin. Gonna keep my ears peeled for tree-knockin', footie-howlin', and the unmistakable sound of a Good-N-Plenty lofting through the canopy.

ETA: NL is affiliated with the SRA.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

We all know how the Footers puff up anything to do with footery using artificially inflated ratings systems, see Bill Munns' book for example, so the real rating for the expedition must be down around 2.0/5.0 stars.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

OMG it is so hilarious, that a website about expedition to go see bigfoot, has a picture of a massively psychoactive Amanita mushroom right on the first page.

Quote:

Amanita muscaria, commonly known as the fly agaric or fly amanita, is a mushroom and psychoactive basidiomycete fungus, one of many in the genus Amanita.

The Bigfooter's knowledge of all things outdoors is critical to a proper scientific expedition.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

And, riiiigggghhhhhht, because you again dodged the eternally dodged question about the paradox between Bigfoot's miraculous ability to remain undetected while simultaneously being seen by "numerous witnesses" (your exact words) for sufficient duration and in sufficient detail to allow them to "describe male genitalia" (again, your words; "describe," not "saw it in fleeting, maybe").

Bigfoot is a master of illusion, he has evolved to avoid detection over thousands of years.

Despite this incredible feat, you can quite easily go out into your local greenbelt and holler at the top of your lungs and this mysteriously stealthy humanoid will gladly holler back.

Makes total sense when you think about it. I mean, why wouldn't a highly intelligent master of evasion be fooled by a guy cupping his hands to his mouth and doing his best impression of Bobcat Goldthwait impersonating a wounded banshee?

Wow BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) really runs the gambit of apparently functioning nut jobs......you've got FarArcher waiting to amass his multi-million dollar army before the assualt on the Bigfoot Army.....then this....I'd like to know if his clients know his postion on this issue, if there any left.

So when ones mind starts to believe if you go forth into the wilds with goodness in your heart, that a giant monkey man will visit you....is it a sign of impending insanity or a prediction of how soon your going to become bear poop?

I just watched a episode of the Discovery program Daily Planet and it had a segment on a so called researcher of a creature called the Swamp Ape that supposedly lives in the Florida Everglades.

The show segment soft soaped the whole thing including a interview with a Scientist who talked about having a "open mind" etc. And there was the required video footage, from a distance, of the ape, that screamed fake!

The show instead of calling bollocks on this trash, pandered to true believers in the Swamp Ape. No doubt in keeping with the Discovery channels drift into irrelevant crap and the promotion of utter woo.

No doubt in keeping with the Discovery channels drift into irrelevant crap and the promotion of utter woo.

It's called the Discovery Channel because it allows people to discover the full range of woo crap which brings joy and contentment to the human soul. Those with an open mind are the ones who can allow this kind of satisfying goodness into their realm. Others are left to wallow and grasp for fulfillment in ways that are vague and without social sanction.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Wow BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) really runs the gambit of apparently functioning nut jobs......you've got FarArcher waiting to amass his multi-million dollar army before the assualt on the Bigfoot Army.....then this....I'd like to know if his clients know his postion on this issue, if there any left.

So when ones mind starts to believe if you go forth into the wilds with goodness in your heart, that a giant monkey man will visit you....is it a sign of impending insanity or a prediction of how soon your going to become bear poop?

Another possibility is that he's just full of ****. From his easy-to-fake outdoor adventure avatar to his alleged attorneyness.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

I do have the ability to get out this year and plan on going out at least once a month. But getting the necessary evidence that will be accepted by science isn't my primary goal. I would like to have a daylight sighting. That would be enough for me.

I do have the ability to get out this year and plan on going out at least once a month. But getting the necessary evidence that will be accepted by science isn't my primary goal. I would like to have a daylight sighting. That would be enough for me.

But surely if you're confident of knowing where it is, and are hoping for a daylight sighting, that some kind of confirmation would be easily attained.

If all you're going to say is "I've seen it in the daylight," and then have nothing to show for it, that's not exactly the kind of thing that'll help sway the assertion that believers are merely playing games.

That's exactly what it means, at least going by what the article says. For everyone complaining about how the grant is a waste of money, the article, which seems focused on trying to make the project seem ridiculous, doesn't actually describe a project focused on studying the paranormal; it describes an ethnographic research project. The NPS gave a small (seriously, in terms of federal grants, that's an incredibly small amount, and it's spread out over 3 years) grant to a Native-advocacy organization so they can document traditional knowledge. Since it's an NPS grant, I assume the study will involve research goals and outreach possibilities the NPS was interested in before issuing a call for the grant.

No one in that project is trying to prove that bigfoot exists, and the goal isn't finding evidence of the paranormal. It's about preserving oral traditions and (probably) getting some information about how the oral traditions of Native people in the area relate to NPS-controlled lands. The NPS is probably going to use the results of this project in interpretive and public outreach efforts. That kind of project isn't unusual as far as federally-funded projects go, and isn't useless (IMO, of course, as someone who works in a related field; I know people with different political opinions about social science and humanities funding will disagree). The bigfoot component, which is language the company seems to have been avoiding - and rightly so, since they're studying actual Native traditions, not bigfoot - just makes it easy to say inflammatory things about.

But surely if you're confident of knowing where it is, and are hoping for a daylight sighting, that some kind of confirmation would be easily attained.

If all you're going to say is "I've seen it in the daylight," and then have nothing to show for it, that's not exactly the kind of thing that'll help sway the assertion that believers are merely playing games.

You make it sound like I know their address and can drop by the flat for a cup of tea. Yes, we know the vicinity, but they do move about.

I spoke with someone last weekend that had a daylight encounter with a female and juvenile about 10 days ago at a distance of approximately 50 yards. The area where this happened is new to me, but has a history of sighting. I plan on going up this spring and having a look.

Also regarding the highlighted section, I couldn't care less about that. I'm not doing it for you or anyone else. I'm doing it because I enjoy it. That doesn't mean I won't try and get evidence, just means I'm not going to fret if I don't.

You make it sound like I know their address and can drop by the flat for a cup of tea. Yes, we know the vicinity, but they do move about.

I spoke with someone last weekend that had a daylight encounter with a female and juvenile about 10 days ago at a distance of approximately 50 yards. The area where this happened is new to me, but has a history of sighting. I plan on going up this spring and having a look.

Also regarding the highlighted section, I couldn't care less about that. I'm not doing it for you or anyone else. I'm doing it because I enjoy it. That doesn't mean I won't try and get evidence, just means I'm not going to fret if I don't.

But you told me that you'd found them, and that you just needed to prove it. As I said back then, when you find something, that means that you know where it is located.

You can enjoy it all you like, that's fine, but nobody with an ounce of common sense will believe that you or your friends are out casually spotting Bigfoots as though you're spying birds in the trees.

That's kind of like saying that you have the winning lottery ticket but never bother to cash it in.

Any other rare species of a real creature is seen and then promptly documented, but Bigfoot is apparently regularly seen and never ever documented. That to me is all the proof I need that Bigfoot is a creature that only resides in the imagination of those who believe in it.

That doesn't mean I won't try and get evidence, just means I'm not going to fret if I don't.

This is a common theme among Bigfoot believers, and not all that surprising. The only people who apparently want Bigfoot to be found are the sceptics, whereas the believers are happy with never locating any evidence whatsoever.

I'm going to be bold as brass and state that you, nor anyone, is ever going to need to fret about not finding evidence, since there is none to find.

I do have the ability to get out this year and plan on going out at least once a month. But getting the necessary evidence that will be accepted by science isn't my primary goal. I would like to have a daylight sighting. That would be enough for me.

This is a common theme among Bigfoot believers, and not all that surprising. The only people who apparently want Bigfoot to be found are the sceptics, whereas the believers are happy with never locating any evidence whatsoever.

It's common among other believers of junk from ghosts to psychics. "I know my fringe belief is true and I have no need to prove it to others." Which just means they realize they have no good evidence for that their belief, or as we sometimes see, they're just pretending. Having spent some time as a token skeptic with a paranormal group, I've experienced just how far believers will bend reality to conform to their belief , in an attempt to escape the actuality. I saw all manner of individuals from the credulous to the cynical exploiter; never ran into any psychics or ghosts though.

Quote:

I'm going to be bold as brass and state that you, nor anyone, is ever going to need to fret about not finding evidence, since there is none to find.

They do tend to fool themselves with what they purport to be evidence. The problem is that the evidence is so unconvincing when examined critically. The absence of reliable, objective bigfoot evidence reflects the absence of bigfoot in reality.

NL claimed the actuality (of winning the bet) is nearly nil; he just needs to eliminate the modifiers.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.